OPINION: What worked and what did not: views from the field | Kyodo News0000

April 11, 2011 17:07
HomeAll headlines

Video Advisory

Politics

PhotosPodcastRSS

Nuclear crisis (now fully accessible)

Economy / BusinessSociety

Quake

Opinions on nuclear crisis (now fully accessible)

SportsAsia

Entertainment

Industry Brief

Travel / City Life

North Korea

SnapshotJapan-China

Focus / Feature

BREAKING NEWS: No reSociety Quake Opinions on nuclear crisis (now fully accessible)
Read It Later

Mail

SharePrint

OPINION: What worked and what did not: views from thefield
By Rajib ShawTOKYO, April 11, Kyodo

Recently I took a survey in the affected areas of Iwate and Miyagi prefectures as a part of the needassessment team of a nonprofit organization named SEEDS Asia.
This survey was an effort by the consortium of nongovernmental organizations called Japan Platform
which has been active mobilizing resources in the hardest-hit areas. I visited several affected towns andcities including Taro, Miyako, Yamada, Kamaishi, Ofunato, Rikuzentakata, Kesennuma, Minamisanriku,Ishinomaki, Sendai, Iwanuma, Watari and Yamamoto-cho in four days. The devastation is huge, andbeyond any description. After the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, I surveyed Indonesia, Sri Lanka and India,
but did not see this level of destruction.
First, let us look at the magnitude of the earthquake, which is a once-in-1,000-years event. The affectedarea is known for its past active seismicity, and repeated tsunami, like June 15 of 1896, March 3 of 1933,and on May 22 of 1960. The last one was due to the Chile earthquake. Paleo-seismicity tells that in 869
AD, there was a major event, named Jogan Earthquake, where three fault sources broke simultaneously.
The current earthquake is also of the same nature. Therefore, the energy released was much higher
compared to other recent earthquakes, causing one of the strongest tsunami Japan has experienced in
the last 100 years.
Apart from the magnitude of the earthquake and resultant tsunami, one of the key reasons for devastationis Japan's land character. Almost 70 percent of the country's land is covered by mountains, which leaves avery narrow coastal belt. The devastation of tsunami was found to be the largest in two types of land
areas. The first is areas with a narrow opening to the sea, like that of Taro in Miyako town. The other isareas of vast, flat lands, like Rikuzentakata (in Iwate prefecture) or Watari, Yamamoto-cho (in Miyagi
prefecture).
Taro is famous for its tsunami prevention measures. The town was affected by the 1896 tsunami (knownas the Meiji Sanriku earthquake and tsunami), which killed more than 22,000 people. The town lost mostof its population in that disaster. In 1933, the town was again hit by another devastating tsunami, following
a decision by the town leader to construct a mega dyke to protect its people. The dyke was built in several
phases, becoming a 10 meter-by-2.5 kilometer long structure. The latest tsunami wave overflowed thisdyke and damaged some areas, but would have been more devastating without the dyke. The importanceof infrastructure-based disaster prevention can be highlighted here.
In Kamaishi, Iwate prefecture, an eight-story tsunami evacuation building stood undamaged very close tothe shoreline. On the hazard map, distributed by the city government, this building was designated andmarked as an evacuation building with clear instruction that people need to evacuate higher than thefourth floor. What is more interesting is that, on March 3 (also the day of the 1933 Showa Sanriku
earthquake and tsunami) an evacuation drill was performed with local residents and school children.
Therefore, tsunami awareness was rather fresh in their minds and people took shelter in evacuationbuildings and on a nearby evacuation road (a pre-designated road on the nearby mountain with accessstairs), immediately when they felt the earthquake. This shows the importance of evacuation drills anddisaster education.
In contrast, in Rikuzentakata, where there was rather vast land in the coastal area, the tsunami wave
entered as far as 4 km inland, caused extensive damage to the local government building, and made it

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/04/84552.html[4/11/2011 5:34:37 PM]

Video Advisory
Video Advisory (April 11) -4Video Advisory (April 11) -3Video Advisory (April 11) -2-Nuclear crisis (now fully accessible)
URGENT: Japan to expand evacuation areas nearcrippled nuclear plant
Fukushima Gov. Sato rejects meeting with TEPCO
president
S. Korea, Japan to hold experts' meeting on nuke crisis
Tues.

Quake
Kan thanks world for showing 'bonds of friendship' afterdisasters
14,000 still missing 1 month after quake, tsunami
OPINION: What worked and what did not: views from thefield

Opinions on nuclear crisis (now fullyaccessible)
OPINION: What worked and what did not: views from thefield
OPINION: Sheer devastation reminds us of human,
technological limitations
OPINION: Looking forward from Fukushima

Industry BriefKyodo Industry Brief (April 11) -1Kyodo Industry Brief (April 8) -2Kyodo Industry Brief (April 8) -1-North Korea
N. Korea opens arts festival to celebrate founder'sbirthday

OPINION: What worked and what did not: views from the field | Kyodo News

non-operational in the immediate rescue relief phase. A distinct difference in the post-disaster operation
can be observed in the cities where the local government office was not affected due to its location onhigher ground. In Ofunato in Iwate Prefecture, or in Iwanuma, Yamamoto-cho, in Miyagi Prefecture, thelocal governments already started their preparations for the short- and medium-term recovery phase,including construction of temporary shelter. In contrast, in Minamisanriku, where the three-story disastermanagement office was also destroyed, the relief phase has been prolonged.

Ex-Finland, Ireland, Norway leaders to join Carter on N.
Korea trip
S. Korean official voices concern about contamination inN. Korea

For early warning systems to be effective, a proper risk communication mechanism, which links bothinformation provider and receiver, is needed. In the March 11 disaster, the tsunami warning and tsunami
advisory were issued within three minutes after the event.

Japan-China

The warning was broadcast though the Japan Meteorological Agency webpage, television, radio, social
networking media, and also through announcements from the town and city offices. However, in several

Taiwan-based group to call off protest voyage todisputed Senkakus

places, initially, people underestimated the height and severity of tsunami, and started evacuating after
the first wave had arrived. What makes people take immediate action for evacuation? An easy-to-China allows 2 N. Korea defectors in Shenyang to leave
for Japan

understand early warning (with information on potential tsunami height), evacuation orders and repeatedevacuation drills make a difference. In some cases, people had a ''feel safe'' misperception, where
neighbors' and children's roles became important.

Chinese plane approaches near Japanese MSDF ship in
East China Sea

What is an ideal tsunami prevention measure? There is possibly not a single formula applicable to everyplace. It needs to be customized based on local geographic and topographic conditions. A combination ofearly warning systems, infrastructure measures like coastal dykes, tsunami evacuation centers, andawareness and education campaigns including evacuation drills and disaster education is required.
Finally, I would like to emphasize that through the 400 km long survey along the coast, I have not seen
major earthquake damage. While liquefaction effects were reported in Chiba and Ibaraki prefectures due
to soft soil and reclaimed land, most of the buildings on higher ground in the worst-affected areas remain
undamaged. The only visible impact was the damage of roof tiles in some areas like Natori, Watari andYamamoto-cho in Miyagi prefectures.
The epicenter and the fault zone were located under the sea, and therefore it may not be comparable to
the Hanshin-Awaji Great Earthquake, which was an inland earthquake, with the fault line passing below
the devastated city. But with a magnitude 9 earthquake, and with an intensity of 7 on the Japanese scale(the maximum possible intensity), a real appreciation needs to be given to the earthquake risk reduction
measures Japan has practiced over years. In all the coastal towns, a sharp demarcation of affected andnon-affected areas can be made through the tsunami inundation, which varies from 3 to 5 km. If there wasadditional damage due to earthquakes, the situation would have been worse.
(Rajib Shaw is an associate professor in the laboratory of International Environment and Disaster
Management in the Kyoto University's Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies. His specialty iscommunity-based disaster risk reduction, and he is also the board chairman of SEED Asia.)

Japan quakeJapanese popculture

N. Korea

Radioactive water spilled at Onagawa
nuclear plant in Miyagi

8 Apr 2011

Japan defends radioactive waterdisposal, vows to fully inform world

5 Apr 2011

Radiation-shielding sheets to beinstalled in Sept. at earliest

6 Apr 2011

Tokyo Electric disposing of low
radioactive water in Pacific

5 Apr 2011

Work under way to prevent explosion
at Fukushima reactor

6 Apr 2011==KyodoSociety Quake Opinions on nuclear crisis (now fully accessible)
Read It Later

MailSharePrint

Home All headlines Photos Podcast RSS
Video Advisory Nuclear crisis (now fully accessible) Quake Opinions on nuclear crisis (now fully accessible) Industry Brief North Korea Japan-China

Politics
Subscription

Economy / BusinessAdvertisement

About Us

SocietySports

Privacy Policy

Asia

Copyright

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/04/84552.html[4/11/2011 5:34:37 PM]

EntertainmentUsage

Site Map

Travel / City Life

Contact Us

Snapshot

Focus / Feature

Copyright 2011 Kyodo News. All Rights Reserved.